Hon. Jim Quinn: Honourable senators, I’m rising to speak to this amendment and to the overall discussion we have been having. I have not prepared notes for this, but I feel that it’s time I rise and say a few things, and I am willing to do that.

I am on the Transport Committee, I have been on the steering committee, and we have heard about the number of witnesses we’ve had, the number of deliberations, amendments and things of that nature. We have heard that we sent 26 over, 18 were approved, 2 were amended slightly and 6 were not accepted.

The one I found the most difficult was 4.2(2) and the fact that we had been told by the minister “big guys and little guys out,” the little guys being the user-generated content.

So we have had many discussions here, and I have heard different points of view. I’ve also taken the time to speak with a number of colleagues on 4.2(2) and the bill in general. That’s the beauty of the Senate: the experiences of people across the spectrum, whether former public servants, lawyers, doctors. People from all walks of life are here, and it’s a wealth of information and points of view. I appreciate that.

In my deliberation, I assure you this has been a struggle back and forth for me in terms of whether I will support this bill and whether I will support these amendments. As a former public servant — and some of the people I’ve talked to I have great respect for. I’m very proud to have spent 32 years in the public service. I am very proud of those institutions and the institutions of government, whether it’s the public service, the chamber, the Senate or any other institution.

We passed with unanimity an amendment to the message that would go back eventually to the House in which we said “public assurance.” I’m one person who believes that we need to have clarity in our laws, and I would prefer very much that we have 4.2(2) in the bill. Having said that, we’ve made this message and the amendment to it, which is something the government leader and my leader worked together on to change a few words to give it a little more oomph. I can argue that message doesn’t carry much weight for anything, but as a former member of that institution and now part of this institution, and having worked closely with the other place while I was in the Privy Council Office, I have to believe and trust that the voters of this country will hold folks to account when the time comes for that event to happen.

We have been given the public assurance that user-generated content is out. I have to thank Senator Plett because I thought there were several points in his speech that really influenced why I wanted to get up now, but the last one was the one that really made me want to stand up. He said that the “blue wave is coming.” For me, that is an assurance that the democratic process in this country will eventually run its course. If people are upset with the government because they have broken their promise — that user-generated content is out and they, in fact, allow regulatory development that breaks that very public declaration, not only in committee but in other places — then the people will speak.

That is something that has weighed heavily on me, but I want to thank Senator Plett for helping to give me the confidence to stand up and speak now at this juncture.

I wanted to share those thoughts and ask you to reflect on that.

I want to thank my colleagues who took the time and had the patience of having a discussion with me on where we are today. Thank you.

Senator Quinn: Senator Plett, I hope that when you have the chance, you can reflect on what I said. What I said was that the blue wave was coming. I didn’t reflect on what you just said; I reflected upon the fact that there is a democratic process that lies ahead; it’s called an election. That election will take place in due course. I believe that’s what I said.

Senator Quinn: Yes.

Senator Quinn: Thank you, Senator Housakos.

I think the committee has done an excellent job. I commend all the members of the committee and the ex officio members who participated, as well as the various witnesses we had. We have been a part of that democratic process as members of the committee.

But I’ve also come to this conclusion: There has been a lot of discussion here about the Constitution, the roles of senators and our rights. I think we have done our due diligence in having heavy debate during committee and in this chamber. I’m at the point where I’m saying that I am not elected. If this is something so dear to my heart, I think some of my colleagues said, “Go and run.” Run in the election. But I think my more valuable contribution in this institution is — I think you and I spoke on this — trying to do the sober second thought and trying to add value but also recognizing that the elected government has the right to govern, and it’s our job to challenge. We’ve challenged, and the mitigating factor for me is that we — all of us — agreed to a message that included public assurance that the government will not do what it said it wouldn’t do.

After 32 years in the public service, I have great confidence in that institution and I believe that the House and this institution will follow through and hold people to account, as the electorate should.

Hon. Jim Quinn: I have a question for Senator Gold.

First, thank you for the detailed explanation of those amendments that were accepted and those that were not accepted. My commentary and question are along the lines of much that has already been discussed, so I will stay away from that.

It is a given that we would have preferred clarity in the bill. I think Canadians need that clarity, but I also accept what you said: that regulatory science is a flexible science.

You’ve mentioned that there were so many experts and witnesses, et cetera, who were in favour of the bill. There were also those who were not, and we’ve all received countless numbers of emails. We’ve heard from witnesses who weren’t in favour of proposed section 4.2. With all respect, I thought that our colleagues Senator Miville-Dechêne and Senator Simons did an excellent job in bringing a compromise to us. Unfortunately, the other place rejected that particular amendment.

You also reminded us in your remarks about our role as senators, and there have been papers written by Senator Harder, and also recently by Senator Miville-Dechêne and Senator Omidvar, reminding us of what our roles are.

Where I’m going with this is that we’ve had our kick at the cat. We’ve done our job. We’ve sent it to over to the other side, where they are the elected people. At the end of the day, if they include or do not include an amendment, they have to stand before the people and be voted in or out.

My question is, for all those people who have come to our offices expressing concern exactly on proposed section 4.2, which is the crux of the matter here, what more can the government do to give them reassurance? What plan does the government have to communicate what you’ve communicated to us?

Senator Quinn: Senator Gold, really the focus of my comment is that all of the inputs received, et cetera, from people across the country — people who have appeared before the committee, people who have not appeared before the committee but have communicated with senators, across the spectrum — deserve to hear more directly than the normal process. You’re right: There are all kinds of things that are published and put on websites and whatnot, but the people who have been communicating with us may not be the people who deal with these issues in that format, if you can understand what I’m saying. They’re not used to the legislative process.

Should the government not have a proactive strategy to communicate with those people who have made their views on proposed section 4.2 explicitly known?

Hon. Jim Quinn: Senator Gold, regardless of the outcome of the vote on a pre-study for Bill C-11 — and, I would add, Bill C-13 — would you agree to make arrangements for members of the Transport and Communications Commitee and, I would add, as well, members of the Official Languages Committee to receive, when we return from next week’s recess, a copy of the technical briefing binders and any other briefing material supplied by government when reviewing legislation? I would find it vastly more valuable than that of a technical brief and a PowerPoint deck. If the main point of a pre-study is to be informed, why wouldn’t the government provide committee members with this information, regardless of the outcome of these pre-study votes?

Senator Quinn: Senator Gold, you mentioned in your replies to various questions that committees are masters of their own procedures. Would you support an amendment to these motions to leave it up to each committee to determine how to prioritize these pre-studies in order to better balance their workloads and ensure that committees are masters of their own proceedings, especially given that these are pre-study proposals that will undoubtedly continue to be studied when and if they land here from the other place?